High anxiety in AFL

Jon Pierik, Martin Blake, Jared Lynch

AFL umpires boss Jeff Gieschen has added more intrigue to the clash between West Coast and Essendon on Saturday night, declaring the Eagles are playing up high tackles to win free kicks and he understood why clubs had become agitated.

The interpretation of when a head-high tackle should be penalised continued to rage yesterday, this time with confused Geelong coach Chris Scott declaring he was uncertain what was a free kick and what wasn't, while the AFL Players Association urged umpires to act to prevent serious injury.

Players are increasingly turning legal tackles into free kicks by dropping their shoulders or knees, forcing the tackler's arms to slide up to the neck or head, a tactic the Eagles have been criticised for.

With the AFL describing the head as ''sacrosanct'', another tactic of players, from all clubs, has been to charge head-first into opponents.

Advertisement

The Eagles have 52 more free kicks than their opponents this season, with midfielder Luke Shuey and small forward Ashton Hams being awarded the most frees for head-high contact.

''I wouldn't say West Coast are exploiting the rules … I agree that when they get taken high, they are accentuating the fact and showing everybody that they've been taken high,'' Gieschen said yesterday.

Gieschen said umpires had correctly awarded free kicks to the Eagles against North Melbourne on Sunday.

He revealed that umpires had long monitored how players attempted to shrug tackles in the hope of winning a free kick.

''We've watched these very closely over the years. Look, I think we can see from these [against North Melbourne] that the umpire in all these cases had no option but to pay high contact,'' Gieschen said on the AFL website.

''On all these occasions the contact has been high. Yes, the player might have moved a little bit but players with the football are entitled to evade the tackle. But they've all been clearly high.

''We're comfortable with those. But we understand this outcry at the moment about what the Eagles are doing but we think in these cases the umpires' correctly paid free kicks because they've all been taken high.''

But he said a free kick awarded to Hawthorn's Cyril Rioli for charging into Saint Dean Polo on Saturday night was wrong. Polo was so frustrated he also conceded a 50-metre penalty.

''If he's stationary like Polo was, it should be play-on,'' Gieschen said.

Echoing the words of Essendon great Matthew Lloyd in The Age yesterday, AFLPA general manager of player relations, Ian Prendergast, urged the umpires to guard against the threat of serious injury by not rewarding players who charge head-first into an opponent. ''We would encourage umpires to interpret those instances in a way that discourages the act of a player trying to create high contact and put at risk their health and safety,'' he said.

''If the game is officiated in a way that discourages players undertaking those type of actions, players will stop doing it because they realise there is no advantage to it.

''Players are risk takers, they are aggressive, they are warriors. They don't necessarily care about the risk. They just go out and get the results they are looking for, being free kicks.''

Lloyd fears a player who tries to get a free kick by charging into his opponent head-first risks becoming a quadriplegic.

Scott believes the debate had become murky.

''It would be a lot clearer if the umpires actually said to us or the AFL identified which ones were free kicks and which ones were mistakes,'' Scott said.

''There are two distinct issues, there's drawing the free kick by leading with your head, which I think we all accept as dangerous and my understanding of the interpretation is that's that not a free kick if you run into someone with your head. And then the other one is shrugging a tackle.

''I think the two are getting confused. The umpires have got to be clear with us or the umpiring department and let us know which ones are free kicks and which ones aren't. We've heard the umpires … say that you can't duck into a tackle and expect a free kick. If you have the ball and you put your head down into the tackler, that should be called play-on.''

St Kilda forward Justin Koschitzke said it was up to players to tackle correctly.

''You never try and tackle around the head. If you do it properly and you're disciplined, it's not going to be an issue,'' he said.

57 comments

good to see the players are on to this - koschitzke nails it; play to the rules and get on with it.

and what's this? and article on high tackles without 'selwood' being used!

Commenter

samuel coleridge

Location

xanadu

Date and time

May 09, 2012, 6:53AM

Totally agree, Brad Scott is a whinger, and sore loser! Damn Vics, all they do is complain to the VFL (aka AFL) when things don't go their way!

Commenter

johnnnno

Date and time

May 09, 2012, 12:36PM

Just rub the Selwoods out for 6 weeks and the practise would fall by 75%.

Commenter

Classic Boy

Location

Life boat earth

Date and time

May 09, 2012, 8:05AM

If those who tackle the Selwoods tackled properly, there would be no problem.At the end of the day, everyone is whinging because it is the Eagles. If it was Collingwood, there would be no problem. Eddie Everywhere would see to that.

Commenter

Steve

Location

Bayswater WA

Date and time

May 09, 2012, 11:08AM

Selwood taught them all...dip the knees, drop the body, raise the arms to slide the tackle up.... it's not rocket science but is is becoming a joke.

Commenter

hard edge

Location

the boundary

Date and time

May 09, 2012, 8:05AM

I think the tackle-shrugging part of the story is just the evolution of the game. There was a reason people used to tackle around the hips and waist - it was impossible to shrug.

Then the game became more handball-centric and tacklers started trying to pin the arms to prevent a handball. The obvious thing to do is to try to shrug out of the tackle - is the tackled player supposed to just stand there?

Commenter

Matt

Location

Hobart

Date and time

May 09, 2012, 8:21AM

I agree with Matt here.

It is also dangerous when a player is grabbed around the upper body and his arms are pinned. If he is slung to the ground injury can occur because he has no arms to soften the fall.

Recent incident is Carazzo who had arms pinned and was shoulder driven into the ground.

I think it is self preservation to try and free the arms from a pin tackle.

The real issue here, IMHO, is the head first drive into a player deliberately trying to draw a free. PLAY ON, should be the call.

Commenter

Phil

Location

Melb

Date and time

May 09, 2012, 9:22AM

For goodness sake - read the article. What the Selwood's, Shuey and Ham's are doing is OK. Geischen states they were all legit frees, a player has the right to try and get out of a tackle.

The issue is players running head first into the opposition to draw a free kick.

This is not a forum for you to air your hatred for a particular players or teams.

Commenter

Mel B

Location

Melb

Date and time

May 09, 2012, 11:39AM

Stop reporting players for a well placed hip and shoulder and you will see how the practice will disappear.You wont need to tackle them, just bump them hard.At the moment tackling is the only thing they have to worry about and they have worked out how to milk it.

Commenter

Got Milk

Location

Dreaming

Date and time

May 09, 2012, 8:14AM

What a beat up. It's about time players learn how to tackle, stop going for the shoulders and get lower in the tackle. I am sure this would not be an issue for Scott and other teams if they were first to the ball. I just wish my team could get the ball.

8 May
Who are the players from clubs you don't barrack for that you most like to watch? Maybe you don't enjoy their brilliance when it comes at the expense of your team, but when it's a "neutral game", which combatants most capture your attention?